Mitchel Cohen wrote:

> Hi,
> I hitched from the Rainbow Gathering in Tennessee with a couple of
> researchers traveling to Asheville, North Carolina, where they're
> working on some wild Tesla-related energy projects, independent of the
> government. They work out of an old metal silo in Asheville that was
> pretty cool, based n the work of Stanley Meyer, John Badini, Marco
> Rodin, and Vortex-based mathematics and his Rodin-coil.
> The head of the "silo" research is Gregor Arturo, a young fellow. He's
> very much into the "Thrive" free-energy stuff and tyroidal energy.
> (Check the "Thrive" video online, of which I am pretty critical but
> which also has some interesting stuff in it.) The fellow I hitched with
> goes by the name Eden (aka Jeremiah), and he was very interesting, very
> political, and had just arrived the week before from Colorado before
> starting to do research at the institute.
> I haven't read any of the books they recommended, so I can't say what I
> think of any of it, but they recommend:
> Stanley Meyer, "The Birth of New Technology"
> Margaret Cheney, "Tesla, Man out of Time"
> "Keely and his discoveries, 1893" and
> Keely, "Sympathetic Vibratory Physics"
> Patrick J. Kelly, "Practical Guide to Devices"
> and <>,
> especially an article posted in April 2012.
> Know anything here?
> Mitchel
> ----------------------

Petros Evdokas responds:


The ideological, philosophical and scientific dead end of conventional
science ("scientificism") was highlighted again recently with the "God
particle" (the Higgs boson) fiasco. Notice how they all dropped the
appellation "God particle" the very next day, after using it and hyping
it for more than a decade continually?

Same as the string theory and other particle based models of Cosmology.
They all keep bumping up on glass ceiling which they can not penetrate.

Part of that reason is because conventional physics has abandoned and
suppressed the branch that was born from its own body and loosely
referred to as "visionary physics" about thirty years ago.

Another reason is that conventional science is unwilling and incapable
of appreciating Orgonomy, which provides many answers to the most basic
deficiencies in the currently existing "officially sanctioned" Cosmology.

How we got here

Here are some (not all) of the elements that comprise the roadmap of how
conventional science got stuck where it is now. It's like a man who has
plucked out his own eyes and complains he can't see. [A woman would not
do that!]

1. The maturation of Capitalism into Imperialism that was completed
around the beginning of the 20th century, also signaled the invasion,
occupation and domination of the lands of Science by forces of Capital.
An occupation regime was set up and since that time, Science is ruled by

Since that time and to this day, most people, including scientists, are
unable to tell the difference between Science and technology. This is at
the root of many problems.

2. One of the early battles embodying that takeover was that between
Edison and Tesla. All of the folklore (and mystification) existing today
that revolve around Tesla's legacy is due to Edison's war against
Science, carried out for Capital in the name of profits.

Here's a short summary of that:

3. The great revolution of the sixties and seventies, due to both its
anti-imperialist anti-capitalist character AND to the element of higher
Consciousness that it focused on and cultivated, was able to reunite
Science and philosophy temporarily, opening up the possibility that
Science might get out of the dead end it had entered.

The branch of science known as "Visionary Physics" was created by
scientists whose eyes were opened again by the revolutionary process
taking place around them and within them. Two works, in particular,
produced within that context, held the possibility of a change in course
so that science could become Science again.

One was the book titled "The Tao of Physics", by physicist Fritjof Capra:

Among other things in his book, Capra manages to point out the
ridiculousness of firing particles through bigger and bigger
accelerators at higher and higher speeds in the hope that these will
reveal something supposedly profound about the structure of the
Universe. The only thing that comes out of those "experiments" is what
early computer engineers used to say about programming: "G.I.G.O. - it
means Garbage In, Garbage Out". In other words, what you get out of
those "experiments" is what you put into them: particle collisions at
ever higher speeds and energies, and no way to make sense of them. If
you don't cultivate your ability to make sense, you can not make sense
out of any of those experiments, nor devise meaningful experiments with
relevance to the questions.

This profound guideline was suppressed.

Another significant item of the period was the book titled "Space, Time
and Beyond", written by Bob (Robert) Toben with physicists Fred Alan
Wolf and Jack Scarfatti:

This book is the definitive source for comprehending quantum theory,
tangible reality and Consciousness. It is a presentation - from the
point of view of hard physics - of the idea that reality consists of
Consciousness congealed into space-time. It is the "Mother of all..."
books and movies on the connection between quantum reality and

The mere existence of this book could have helped a restoration of
Science take place. But its point of view was suppressed and ignored. In
the same way that healthy sexuality when suppressed becomes transformed
into degenerate forms like sadism (a "secondary drive"), Visionary
Physics became suppressed, distorted, misunderstood, and now thrives in
a perverted form that feeds billion-dollar industries of new age
dogmatism founded on mystification, ignorance and superstition.

4. The previous anti-Imperialist revolutionary period of the nineteen
twenties and thirties was also a historical juncture that created the
possibility of a restoration of science to its formerly correct
orientation. It produced the branch of science known as Orgonomy,
primarily through the work of Wilhelm Reich.

Reich's work held, and still holds, the possibility of providing the
glue that can bind together currently existing scientific knowledge into
a comprehensive "Theory of Everything". Even though that term is often
the target of nervous humour, it is a noble and valid scientific effort
to unite what we know from the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Theory,
knowledge of Gravity, particle physics, electromagnetism, atomic and
nuclear theory AND the Life sciences, into one meaningful whole.

The effort so far within conventional science is to hack at it, nobly,
but still with blinders on - you can see a summary of where all this is
today, here:

If you read even only the introduction of the above article you'll see
that Life itself, and Life's very curious properties, exemplified by the
knowledge that the very fact of Life's existence is a violation of the
2nd Law of Thermodynamics, are excluded from the parameters that
scientists are exploring in order to put together a valid Theory of

Nevertheless, the quest for a valid Theory of Everything is a good one,
and it would be going in the right direction if it included Orgonomy as
one of its perceptual or theoretical instruments that could help congeal
it all into a meaningful Theory.

But Orgonomy is also suppressed and ignored, its findings and even its
name are ridiculed by conventional scientists who have never made time
to examine any of the postulates put forth by Reich, which are based on
observations and easy to reproduce experiments.

At least Albert Einstein had the decency to try Orgonomy for a bit and
tried to figure it out with Reich. But curious circumstances (and
perhaps the earth-shattering fear of a dissolving dogmatic Cosmology)
eventually diverted him from it.

In my view Orgonomy is still the only way to go in order to help
conventional science get unstuck. Orgonomy can provide tools for the
"big picture", ie, it can provide help to move forward in the efforts
for a unified Theory of Everything, but it can also help the efforts
currently being conducted within more narrow, specialized branches of
science (such as those listed in Mitchel's letter at the top), to find a
context within which what the researchers are doing can make sense.

If you're interested in reading a little more about this please see my
short letter published here on the archives of the Orgone Critical
discussion group, titled:
"Re: [orgonecritical] Is orgone really a specific energy"


Ring the bells that still can ring,  Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack, a crack in everything, That's how the light gets in. 
~ Leonard Cohen